Eur J Psychol Educ

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-018-0389-6

Does self-efficacy contribute to the development

of students’ motivation across the transition
from secondary to higher education?

Eva Kyndt 1 & Vincent Donche 2 & Liesje Coertjens 3 &

Tine van Daal 2 & David Gijbels 2 & Peter Van Petegem 2

Received: 14 September 2017 / Revised: 7 May 2018 / Accepted: 8 May 2018

# Instituto Superior de Psicologia Aplicada, Lisboa, Portugal and Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part
of Springer Nature 2018

Abstract The transition from secondary to higher education is a challenging process, in which
the development of students’ motivation plays a pivotal role. The current study examines
whether self-efficacy—and how it develops—is able to explain the growth in motivation. The
current longitudinal study included five waves, across a period of 25 months (i.e. start of the
final year of secondary education until the beginning of the second year of higher education).
Results show—contrary to our hypothesis based on the self-determination theory and social
cognitive theory—that the growth in autonomous motivation positively predicts the growth in
self-efficacy and that this ‘reversed’ model is superior in terms of fit and explained variance to
the hypothesised model.

* Eva Kyndt
Eva.Kyndt@kuleuven.be; http://www.kuleuven.be

Vincent Donche
Vincent.Donche@uantwerpen.be; http://www.uantwerpen.be
Liesje Coertjens
liesje.coertjens@uclouvain.be; http://www.uclouvain.be
Tine van Daal
Tine.vanDaal@uantwerpen.be; http://www.uantwerpen.be
David Gijbels
David.Gijbels@uantwerpen.be; http://www.uantwerpen.be
Peter Van Petegem
Peter.VanPetegem@uantwerpen.be; http://www.uantwerpen.be
1
Centre for Research on Professional Learning & Development, and Lifelong Learning, KU Leuven –
University of Leuven, Dekenstraat 2, PB3772, 3000 Leuven, Belgium
2
Research Group EduBron, University of Antwerp, Sint-Jacobstraat 2-4, 2000 Antwerp, Belgium
3
Psychological Sciences Research Institute, Catholic University of Louvain, Place Cardinal Mercier
10/L3.05.01, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
 E. Kyndt et al.

Keywords Motivation . Self-efficacy . Transition . Longitudinal growth analysis . Higher

education

Introduction

It has been well established that students face several challenges when they move on from
secondary to higher education. For example, when moving on to higher education, almost half
the students do not succeed in their first year and often withdraw from education altogether
(OECD 2010). These challenges can be linked to the important choices students have to make
in terms of the discipline or even professional career they want to pursue, but also to the fact
that higher education differs considerably from secondary education (e.g. teaching methods,
level of autonomy, quantity of materials, etc.; Authors year).
As the transition from secondary to higher education is a challenging process for many students
(Briggs et al. 2012; Christie et al. 2008), students’ academic motivation and how it develops across
the transition from secondary to higher education seems pivotal. Prior research has shown that
students’ academic motivation relates to persistence (Vansteenkiste et al. 2010), and a lack of
motivation was found to be the main indicator of students dropping out in their first year of higher
education (Vanthournout et al. 2012). In addition, motivation can vary over time and different
contexts (e.g. Authors year; Pan and Gauvain 2012; Ratelle et al. 2004) and can be an important
tool to increase academic achievement in higher education (e.g. Winn 2002; Cerasoli et al. 2014).
While longitudinal studies on the development of academic motivation are relatively
limited, especially with regard to the transition between different educational levels (e.g.
Eccles et al. 1996; Pan and Gauvain 2012), even fewer studies have tried to explain this
development. In the literature, the relationship between self-efficacy and academic motivation
has received a lot of attention (Pintrich and Schunk 1995). However, difficulties have been
identified in terms of clarifying the nature of the relationship between self-efficacy and
academic motivation (Pajares 1996). Starting from the self-determination theory (Deci and
Ryan 2002), the current study examined, using a longitudinal design, if the development of
self-efficacy contributes to the development of students’ academic motivation as they progress
from secondary to higher education. By investigating the relationship between self-efficacy
and academic motivation over time, we aim to expand upon present insights into the causal
ordering of these constructs. The current manuscript starts with illustrating the importance of
self-efficacy in the transition from secondary to higher education and the relationship between
self-efficacy and academic motivation as described by prior research. Subsequently, the
methodology and results of the longitudinal analyses are discussed. Finally, the conclusions,
limitations and future research perspectives are considered.

Theoretical background

Self-efficacy and the transition from secondary to higher education

Self-efficacy is a core concept within the social cognitive theory put forward by Bandura
(1986). An individual’s self-efficacy refers to the belief an individual has in one’s own
capabilities to ‘organize and execute the courses of action required to manage prospective
situations’ (Bandura 1997, p. 3). Self-efficacy is a multifaceted construct (Bandura et al. 1996)
Does self-efficacy contribute to the development of students’ motivation...

and when assessing self-efficacy, it is important that an optimal level of specificity is applied in
order to increase the accuracy of prediction. This level of specificity or focus on specific types
of performance and results distinguishes self-efficacy from other general measures of per-
ceived capability (Pajares 1996). Different levels of specificity can be chosen ranging from
general self-efficacy across different domains in life, self-efficacy pertaining to academic
performances and learning behaviour or self-efficacy focusing on specific study subject. As
this study considers students from various disciplines, we will focus on academic self-efficacy
that is concerned with the belief students have in their capabilities to successfully complete
education. This choice is in line with Bandura’s (2012) argument that people differ in their
efficacy across different activity domains and that measures should suit the activity domain on
which the study focuses (i.e. academic learning in this study).
Self-efficacy mediates the relationship between knowledge and action and influences this
behaviour in a variety of ways. Prior research has shown that self-efficacy has a positive
influence on the effort individuals invest in specific activities, their perseverance, especially
when facing obstacles and difficulties, and the resilience they show when confronted with
problems and disappointments (Bandura 1993; Pajares 1996). In addition, self-efficacy re-
duces stress in taxing situations. Finally, self-efficacy also influences the choices individuals
make; for example, individuals with lower levels of self-efficacy tend to avoid challenging
situations and activities because they fear that they will not be able to cope (Bandura 1993).
During the transition from secondary to higher education, students have to choose a level of
study (e.g. college or university), a study discipline and institution. Prior research has shown
that self-efficacy affects the course of life paths, as it plays a role in career choice and
development (Bandura 1993). The choices that students make when moving on to higher
education can be considered a starting point for their career; hence, it can be expected that self-
efficacy will be important during this transition as self-efficacy affects the choices students’
make (Brooman and Darwent 2014). In addition, research by Christie et al. (2008) showed that
entering university and adapting to higher education is an emotionally demanding situation for
students in which they experience both excitement and stress. In secondary education, students
were familiar with their environment, their teachers, their fellow students and the volume and
level of the work. This is, however, not the case when entering higher education where
different standards and rules apply. High levels of self-efficacy can be expected to enhance
the transition process, as it will contribute to students’ perseverance and resilience when
handling new and potentially stressful situations (Bandura 1993; Pajares 1996). In a recent
systematic review and meta-analysis of predictors of first-year higher academic performance,
self-efficacy was found to be a very important explanatory factor (Richardson et al. 2012).

Motivation across the transition from secondary to higher education

As mentioned, this study aims at clarifying the relationship between self-efficacy and academic
motivation across the transition. While different theoretical frameworks exist for
conceptualising academic motivation, the current study relies on the framework of Deci and
Ryan (2002). This framework is deemed appropriate because this conceptualisation of moti-
vation does not include perceptions of capability similar to the construct of self-efficacy or
self-concept theory in which perceptions of self-worth include a judgement of self-confidence
against a frame of reference or standard (Bong and Skaalvik 2003; Pajares 1996). For a more
elaborate discussion about the similarities and differences between self-efficacy and self-
concept, the reader is referred to the article of Bong and Skaalvik (2003).
 E. Kyndt et al.

The self-determination theory (SDT) conceives motivation as a multidimensional concept,

including both the quality and quantity of motivation (Deci and Ryan 2002). Different types of
motivation are placed on a continuum, from more to less self-determined, depending on the
degree to which the motivation is internalised (Vansteenkiste et al. 2006). Individuals can
experience the regulation of their own behaviour as coming from themselves (internal
regulation) or coming from external factors (external regulation), such as other people,
circumstances and possible consequences (Deci and Ryan 2002; Vansteenkiste et al. 2006).
Intrinsic motivation can be found at the top end of the continuum, with the highest amount
of internal regulation. When considering motivation for learning, intrinsically motivated
students learn out of a sincere interest in learning and for the joy of learning itself, regardless
of the outcomes or consequences. Subsequently, identification is placed on the continuum.
Students, who identify with the value of learning, see the personal relevance of learning and
engage in learning voluntarily. They experience regulation as coming from themselves, due to
the perceived value they attach to it. Intrinsic motivation and identification together constitute
students’ autonomous motivation.
The first type of a more externally regulated motivation is introjected regulation.
Introjectedly regulated students learn to avoid shame or guilt and pursue self-worth
(Vansteenkiste et al. 2006). In other words, their reasons for learning are not completely due
to external factors but have not been fully internalised either. The second type of externally
regulated motivation is situated at the opposite end of the continuum from intrinsic motivation.
With external regulation, the reason for learning has not been internalised at all. Students learn
to avoid punishments or to receive rewards. Introjected and external regulation combined
constitutes controlled motivation (Deci and Ryan 2002). Besides these qualitative differences
in motivation, SDT also considers the quantity of motivation. When students lack motivation
to study and do not see any reason for it, motivation is considered to be absent. Therefore, the
final type of motivation that will be considered is amotivation (Deci and Ryan 2002).
While the majority of longitudinal studies examining the development of academic moti-
vation over time concentrate on primary and secondary education, some studies also focus on
the development of motivation within higher education (Müller and Palekčić 2005; Ratelle
et al. 2004; Pan and Gauvain 2012). Ratelle et al. (2004) found that, on average, students’
intrinsic motivation increases. Müller and Palekčić (2005) only found an increase in autono-
mous motivation between the second and third years of study. Pan and Gauvain (2012) did not
identify any significant differences between years 2 and 3. However, both Müller and Palekčić
(2005) and Pan and Gauvain (2012) found a decrease in autonomous motivation between the
first and second years of higher education. To our knowledge, our study (Authors year) is one
of the few that has examined the development of motivation on a longitudinal basis across the
transition from secondary to higher education. In general, the results of this study show that
autonomous motivation increases and that controlled motivation and amotivation do not
change substantially over time. Amotivation was significantly lower at the start of higher
education in comparison with the end of secondary education (Authors year); however, the
difference was rather small.

The relationship between self-efficacy and motivation

Within educational research focusing on self-efficacy, the relationship between self-efficacy

and academic motivation can be considered one of the main research topics (Pintrich and
Schunk 1995). Prior research has shown that self-efficacy is indeed related to various
Does self-efficacy contribute to the development of students’ motivation...

motivational processes including the motivational constructs stipulated above (Alivernini and
Lucidi 2011; Bandura 1993). Bouffard et al. (2001) state: ‘the motivational processes that
support the use of cognitive and self-regulatory processes are based on students’ self-efficacy’
(p. 590). However, Pajares (1996) warns that ‘subsuming beliefs of personal efficacy under
different motivation constructs can be problematic in that it can obfuscate important differ-
ences between the self-beliefs and minimize the unique contribution that self-efficacy percep-
tions make to an understanding of motivation and behaviour’ (p. 257). Consequently, Pajares
(1996) recommended investigating the unique contribution of self-efficacy to academic
motivation through longitudinal designs, as these designs have the potential to contribute to
the debate about the nature and the causality of the relationship between self-efficacy and
academic motivation. While prior research using SDT often uses the term motivation for a
family of variables energising activity (e.g. competence, relatedness, self-efficacy, interest, …),
the current study focuses on the motivational variables defined by SDT.
For determining the directionality of the relationship between self-efficacy and motivation,
we build on two theories: the social cognitive theory and the self-determination theory. The
social cognitive theory proposes that people act on their beliefs. Stajkovic and Luthans (2003,
p. 131) state that ‘a sense of high self-efficacy may help sustain motivated efforts, even in the
light of adverse conditions and uncertain outcomes’. However, this theory foremost empha-
sises that both self-efficacy and motivation need to be considered when explaining behaviour.
As such, this theory does not provide strong evidence for the directionality. The SDT on the
other hand is clearer about its expectations. While SDT does not use the term self-efficacy, it
does focus on an individual’s innate basic psychological needs, including the need for
competence. According to Sheldon et al. (2001), the need for competence is fulfilled when
people feel capable and effective in the actions they undertake. This definition shows great
resemblance to how Bandura (1997) conceptualises self-efficacy in his social cognitive theory.
It appears that self-efficacy can be considered as a fulfilled need for competence. According to
the basic needs approach, incorporated in the self-determination theory, the fulfilment of the
psychological need for competence leads to a higher intrinsic motivation or—more general-
ly—positive situational motivation (Deci and Ryan 2002; Otis et al. 2005; Schüler et al. 2010).
In addition, similar to the research on self-efficacy, prior studies have shown that effects are
stronger when domain-relevant need satisfaction was considered (Schüler et al. 2010). In this
vein, students’ self-efficacy for learning seems to be interesting within the domain of educa-
tion, especially when considering the challenging circumstances of a transition, and has been
found to enhance students’ academic motivation to learn (Ryan and Deci 2000).

Present study

This study aimed to investigate the contribution of self-efficacy to the development of

motivation across the transition from secondary to higher education. Theoretical expecta-
tions were driving our study. It was expected that high levels of self-efficacy would
correspond to a stronger development of students’ motivation across the transition to
higher education (e.g. Alivernini and Lucidi 2011; Armor and Taylor 1998; Bandura
1993). The current longitudinal study examined the contribution of self-efficacy, while
controlling for differences in the socio-economic background of students, because an
empirical qualitative study by Winn (2002) indicated that the socio-economic status of
students could influence their motivation for learning.
 E. Kyndt et al.

The current study was conducted within the context of Flanders, the Dutch-speaking part of
Belgium. With the exception of specific disciplines (e.g. medicine and specific art forms),
higher education in Flanders is accessible to all students, who have graduated from secondary
education, without them having to do an entrance exam or pass a selection procedure. More
specifically, graduates from general secondary education, as well as technical education, are
automatically allowed access to higher education, with general secondary education being
considered a better preparation for higher education. Therefore, we will also control for the
type of secondary education students followed. In addition, it is important to bear in mind that
higher education is financially supported by the government. This means that tuition fees are
relatively low in comparison with educational systems in the USA or UK for example, making
the sample of students entering higher education in Flanders more diverse in comparison with
samples from countries with high tuition fees and competitive admission procedures.

Motivation: measurement invariance and development

The current study extends our previous study (Authors year), in which the development of
motivation was assessed in-depth by means of multi-indicator latent growth models. The
results of this study will be summarised in this paragraph; however, for all details on the
analyses, we refer the reader to the original study (Authors year). The results of our prior study
showed that for the autonomous motivation scale, longitudinal measurement invariance was
established. In contrast, only partial invariance was found for controlled motivation and
amotivation, as some of the intercept loadings had to be freed in order to achieve an acceptable
model fit. As a consequence, manifest scale scores could not be relied upon and a multi-
indicator latent growth model was applied, allowing us to model the differences in intercepts
across waves.
In general, the results showed that, on average, students’ autonomous motivation increased
across the five waves, with a strong increase across the transition from secondary to higher
education. The change in controlled motivation is limited but nevertheless shows a small
increase during the transition from secondary to higher education. Finally, amotivation
increased within secondary education but was significantly lower at the start of higher
education and henceforth remained stable (Authors year).

Method

Design and participants

Data were collected as part of a large-scale longitudinal project, examining the transition made
by students leaving secondary education at five different moments (van Daal et al. 2013).
During the final year of secondary education, two data collections were organised during
school hours, in November and May (a school year starts September 1st and ends June 30th).
During the second wave, students were asked to provide their contact information (e-mail,
home address and telephone number). They also completed a consent form, which gave
permission to do a follow-up after they graduated from secondary school. The challenge in
terms of attrition started from wave 3 onwards because at that moment students had left
secondary school and were following different trajectories (e.g. moving onto to higher
education, entering the workforce, taking a year off, etc.). The third and fourth measurement
Does self-efficacy contribute to the development of students’ motivation...

waves were organised in the first year following students’ graduation from secondary educa-
tion. More specifically, data was collected in December and May (an academic year in
Flanders starts in mid-September and ends at the beginning of July). The fifth and final wave
took place in December of the following year.
As this research study focuses on the transition from secondary to higher education, only
students who indicated that they had continued onto higher education after graduating from
secondary school were included in the analysis. All potential participants were invited to
participate in every wave regardless of whether they had participated in the wave before. At
T1, 607 students participated, at T2 560 students, 342 at T3, 402 at T4 and 452 students
participated at T5. In total, 630 different students from 31 schools were included in the analysis
as they participated in at least one wave within secondary education and one wave in higher
education (necessary to determine whether or not they actually transitioned to higher educa-
tion). Similar to the enrolment statistics of higher education institutions, the majority of the
sample was female and came from a general secondary education background. There were 373
females versus 257 males and 475 students from general secondary education versus 155
students from technical secondary education. In addition, 390 students indicated that their
mother holds a higher education degree.
Before continuing the analyses, different ANOVA analyses were executed to test
whether participants and non-participants in each wave differed, in terms of their motiva-
tion and self-efficacy. These analyses were executed in order to explore whether we could
consider data to be completely missing at random, which is an assumption when using
maximum likelihood estimation (see below). The only difference that was found was that
students who did not participate in wave 4 scored slightly lower on autonomous motiva-
tion in wave 2 (F = 5.08, df = 549, p = .025, η2 = .009) and higher on controlled motivation
(F = 5.02, df = 339, p = .026, η2 = .009) in wave 3. The same results were found for
students who participated in wave 5 and those who did not (autonomous wave 2: F =
5.11, df = 549, p = 024, η 2 = .009; controlled wave 3: F = 6.57, df = 339, p = .011,
η2 = .019). Given that no consistent patterns were found across the different waves and
that for the few differences that were found between two time points the effect sizes were
very low, it can be concluded that the effect of attrition on the results of this study is
limited. The only difference that was found is that students who participated in wave 2
scored slightly higher on self-efficacy at wave 1 in comparison with students who did not
participate in wave 2 (F = 4.62, df = 603, p = .032, η2 = .008). Again, the effect size can be
considered small. For the other waves, no differences were found. Overall, it can be
concluded that students who participated in the different waves and those who did not
were largely comparable.

Instruments

Motivation A short translated version of the Self-Regulation Questionnaire (SRQ; Ryan and
Connell 1989) was used to measure students’ motivation for learning. This questionnaire was
developed based on the Dutch adaptation of the SRQ (Vansteenkiste et al. 2009) and the
Academic Motivation Scale (AMS), by Vallerand et al. (1992), and comprises three scales:
autonomous motivation (six items: e.g. ‘I study because I enjoy studying’), controlled motivation
(six items: e.g. ‘I study because I would feel bad about myself if I did not’) and amotivation
(three items: e.g. ‘Honestly I do not know, it feels like I am wasting my time at school / within
higher education’). All items were scored on a 5-point Likert scale.
 E. Kyndt et al.

Self-efficacy Self-efficacy for learning was measured using four items (e.g. ‘I am satisfied
with my study skills’), based on research on self-efficacy (Pintrich et al. 1991) and perceived
competence (Ryan and Deci 2000), measuring students’ confidence in their own learning
abilities. A sample item is ‘I belief I can study well’ (Authors year). All items were scored on a
5-point Likert scale.1

Background/control variables Several indicators describing the socio-economic back-

grounds of students were included. More specifically, students were asked to indicate whether
they received a study allowance from the Flemish Government (i.e. depending on family
income), if they spoke Dutch at home (i.e. same language used in schools) and in which type
of neighbourhood they lived (i.e. high concentration of minority groups). Furthermore,
information regarding the highest educational degree obtained by the mother was collected.
This categorical variable was transformed into a dummy variable, indicating whether the
mother successfully completed higher education or not. This indicator was selected because
prior research has shown that students with parents that did not attend higher education
typically face a more challenging transition to higher education (e.g. Ishitani 2003). A final
measure that was included pertained to the type of education (general or technical) students
followed in secondary education.

Analysis

The analysis began by checking the structure and reliability of the instruments. Confirmatory
factor analyses were conducted and the internal consistency of the scales at each wave was
calculated. In addition, the longitudinal measurement invariance of the scales was examined.
Such analysis consists of testing whether factor loadings and intercepts are equal over time
(Coertjens et al. 2012) and is assessed for each scale separately.
Parallel latent growth curve analysis was used to examine the contribution of students’ self-
efficacy to the development of students’ motivation (Muthén and Muthén 2010). This analysis
allows the simultaneous modelling of growth trajectories of different variables and provides
the opportunity to examine the relationships between these growth trajectories. Maximum
likelihood estimation makes it possible to perform analysis on the entire sample (retaining
students who did not participate in every wave), as methodological research has shown the
benefits of including respondents with incomplete data, that is missing data at one or two time
points (Enders and Bandalos 2001). As the data were gathered at unequal time intervals (6, 7, 5
and 7 months, respectively), the factor loading values for the slope were fixed to 0, .5, 1.08, 1.5
and 2.08, respectively (Coertjens et al. 2013). Finally, analyses were run on the individual level
using the ‘type = complex’ option to account for the nested structure of the data (i.e. students
nested in secondary schools) when calculating standard errors and fit indices.
The exploratory analyses were conducted using the R software (R Development Core Team
2012); the packages lavaan (Rosseel 2012), qgraph (Epskamp et al. 2012), Hmisc (Harrell

1
Due to technical issues at T3, participants were (only at wave 3) presented with 5 options for answering, but 7
boxes that could be ticked. In order to keep and calculate growth patterns comparable to the first study on the
development of motivation, answers were recoded to the indicated 5-point scale (e.g. neutral answer = neutral
score, ends of the continuum were coded 1 and 5, etc.)
Does self-efficacy contribute to the development of students’ motivation...

2012) and psych (Revelle 2012) were used. Longitudinal measurement invariance and parallel
growth curve analysis was performed with Mplus version 6.1.

Results

Measurement invariance self-efficacy

When conducting longitudinal research and examining growth over time, it is important to
establish longitudinal measurement invariance. Measurement invariance allows researchers to
accept that individual questions and their respective constructs are interpreted in similar ways
across different waves. It is required for assessing growth over time when using mean scale
scores instead of latent constructs (Coertjens et al. 2012; Van de Schoot et al. 2012).
The analysis began by assessing the internal consistency of the self-efficacy scale at each
wave. Results were satisfactory and showed that Cronbach’s alphas ranged from .85 to .92. In
addition, a confirmatory factor analysis at each wave confirmed the four-scale structure (three
motivational scales and self-efficacy) of our instrument (see Table 1). Subsequently, tests were
done to see whether the basic model structure is invariant across waves (configural invariance).
Results showed that the participants conceptualise the construct of self-efficacy similarly at
each wave (see Table 2). To verify whether the separate items are interpreted in the same way
over time, the factor loadings were adjusted so that they were equal across waves. When the
model fit does not decrease too much in comparison with the configural model, it can be
concluded that items are interpreted in a similar way over time (metric invariance). The
difference in model fit between the configural and metric models is acceptable if the difference
between the CFI of the configural model and the CFI of the model with fixed factor loadings is
smaller than .01. Ideally, the difference in the chi-square test should also not be significant.
However, the chi-square statistic is sensitive to sample size, even if the sample size is quite
small (Iacobucci 2010). Table 2 shows that metric invariance was achieved for the scale
measuring self-efficacy.
In a final step, the indicator intercepts were also fixed to be equal across waves, in order to
test for scalar invariance (Van de Schoot et al. 2012). Scalar invariance indicates that the
difficulty level of the indicators is comparable over time. The results show that scalar
invariance was confirmed for the self-efficacy scale (Table 2). Descriptive statistics and
internal consistencies of the scales at each wave can be found in Table 3. In line with the
guidelines of Fornell and Larcker (1981), Table 4 shows that discriminant validity of the scales
was confirmed at wave 1. The average variance extracted of each scale exceeds the variance
the scale shares with other constructs. As measurement invariance across time was demon-
strated, there is no need to test this for every wave separately.

Table 1 Confirmatory factor analyses at each wave

Wave χ2 df CFI RMSEA [CI 90%] SRMR

1 704.39 129 .989 .084 [.078; .090] .003

2 668.82 129 .992 .082 [.075; .088] .000
3 829.27 129 .990 .097 [.091; .103] .000
4 717.62 129 .992 .085 [.079; .091] .000
 E. Kyndt et al.

Table 2 Measurement invariance over time self-efficacy

Scale Model

χ2 (df) CFI RMSEA

Self-efficacy Model 1 209.629 (74)*** .963 .066 [.056; .077]

Model 2 (equal loadings) 246.603 (83)*** .955 .068 [.059; .078]
Model 3 (+equal intercepts) 255.561 (92)*** .955 .065 [.056; .075]

Scale Model Model comparison

BIC Δχ2 (Δdf) p value ΔCFI

Self-efficacy 12,719.471
12,702.062 Model 1 vs. 2 36.974 (9) < .001 .008
12,656.636 Model 2 vs. 3 8.958 (9) .441 .000

The contribution of self-efficacy

The main aim of the current article is to examine whether self-efficacy and how it develops is
able to explain the growth patterns in motivation, which were identified in our prior study
(Authors year). Therefore, the analysis began with the model specifications of the identified
growth trajectories of motivation, that is growth trajectories with free time scores for auton-
omous and controlled motivation and a piecewise discontinuous growth model for
amotivation. For both, autonomous motivation and self-efficacy scalar measurement invari-
ance was reached; hence, the parallel growth models were fitted using the mean scale scores
for these constructs. For controlled motivation and amotivation, only partial measurement

Table 3 Descriptive statistics scales at each wave

Scale N M SD Cronbach’s α

W1 autonomous 599 3.21 .73 .85

W2 autonomous 551 3.26 .72 .82
W3 autonomous 337 3.61 .74 .85
W4 autonomous 398 3.61 .69 .82
W5 autonomous 448 3.72 .68 .83
W1 controlled 603 3.06 .75 .70
W2 controlled 552 3.05 .75 .73
W3 controlled 341 2.90 .85 .79
W4 controlled 400 2.97 .83 .80
W5 controlled 449 2.99 .86 .80
W1 amotivation 604 1.87 .80 .77
W2 amotivation 555 1.94 .85 .80
W3 amotivation 339 1.45 .64 .76
W4 amotivation 401 1.51 .76 .84
W5 amotivation 450 1.47 .73 .87
W1 self-efficacy 605 3.49 .78 .99
W2 self-efficacy 553 3.52 .74 .99
W3 self-efficacy 340 3.35 .82 .90
W4 self-efficacy 397 3.38 .85 .99

Note: W wave; 5-point Likert scale

Does self-efficacy contribute to the development of students’ motivation...

Table 4 Correlations and average variance explained scales wave 1

Self-efficacy Autonomous motivation Controlled motivation Amotivation

Self-efficacy .99 .28** − .03 − .22**

Autonomous motivation .69 .001 − .55**
Controlled motivation .50 .09*
Amotivation .73

Note: Diagonal contains the square root of the average variance extracted (facilitating the comparison with the
correlations)
*p < .05; **p < .01

invariance was reached; therefore, these growth trajectories were fitted using a multi-indicator
growth model that allowed the modelling of the intercept variances (Coertjens et al. 2013).
Figure 1 presents the structure of the multi-indicator parallel growth model, which was fitted
for both controlled motivation and amotivation.
Firstly, it was determined which growth trajectory of self-efficacy was the most appropriate,
and whether the growth trajectory of self-efficacy could be modelled simultaneously with the
growth trajectory of the three different motivational constructs. For each type of motivation,
different parallel growth curve analyses (linear, quadratic and free time scores) were compared
to each other.

Fig. 1 Model multi-indicator parallel growth analysis

 E. Kyndt et al.

The first parallel growth curve model estimated a linear growth in self-efficacy. The second
model examined a quadratic growth in self-efficacy, the third model included a growth model with
free time scores for self-efficacy and the final model included a discontinuous piecewise growth
model dividing self-efficacy in secondary and higher education. Because both pieces only had two
measurement moments, the slope of both pieces needed to be fixed to 0. In order for the quadratic
model to converge, the variance of the slope of self-efficacy also needed to be fixed to 0. The model
fit for each model can be found in Table 5. For the model including self-efficacy and autonomous
motivation, the results indicate that the model with free time scores for both motivation and self-
efficacy yielded the best fit. In addition to having a lower fit than the free time scores model, the
quadratic model was not selected because the quadratic slope was not significant (q = − .072,
SE = .054, p = .179). The discontinuous model showed a similar model fit, but the BIC value was
higher and as such the free time scores model was preferred. An examination of the loadings of the
indicators of the slope for self-efficacy shows that self-efficacy remains stable within the final year
of secondary education and especially increases across the transition from secondary to higher
education (see Table 6). For controlled motivation combined with self-efficacy, as well as
amotivation combined with self-efficacy, the analyses accounting for the nested structure did not
converge (even after increasing the number of iterations) as such that relations could not be further
explored, is a consequence of the non-convergence.
Subsequently, we examined whether the development of autonomous motivation could be
predicted by the development of self-efficacy. Figure 2 presents the schematic overview of the
estimated parallel growth model, with self-efficacy predicting autonomous motivation (control
variables were omitted in the figure for presentation purposes). The model fit of the parallel
growth curve model with self-efficacy as a predictor for autonomous motivation was accept-
able (χ2 = 92.993, df = 27, CFI = .964, TLI = .952, RMSEA [CI 90%] = .062 [.049; .076],
SRMR = .052, BIC = 7603.484). However, the reversed model in which autonomous motiva-
tion predicted self-efficacy showed a slightly better fit (χ2 = 86.413, df = 27, CFI = .968,
TLI = .957, RMSEA [CI 90%] = .059 [.045; .073], SRMR = .046, BIC = 7595.379). In terms
of explained variance, autonomous motivation predicts respectively 16.5 and 57.7% of the
intercept and slope variance of self-efficacy, while only 13.5 and 33.4% of the variance in the
intercept and slope of autonomous motivation is explained by self-efficacy, respectively.
Our model including the control variables also showed a good fit (χ2 = 152.165, df = 76,
CFI = .961, TLI = .953, RMSEA [CI 90%] = .040 [.031; .049], SRMR = .047, BIC =
7578.181). However, this model produced a warning that the standard errors might not be
trustworthy due to a non-positive first-order product matrix and that this was most likely due to
the fact that the number of parameters exceeded the number of clusters minus the number of

Table 5 Model fit parallel latent growth models without predictors

Model CFI TLI RMSEA [95% CI] χ2 df BIC

Autonomous motivation
Linear SE .959 .948 .065 [.052; .079] 103.328 28 7610.081
Quadratic SEa .964 .952 .063 [.049; .077] 93.864 27 7606.100
Free time scores SE .970 .958 .059 [.045; .073] 82.196 26 7598.89
Piecewise discontinuousb .970 .958 .058 [.044; .073] 81.428 26 7600.513

Note: SE self-efficacy
a
Variance of the slope of SE fixed to 0
b
Variance of the slopes of SE of both pieces fixed to 0
Does self-efficacy contribute to the development of students’ motivation...

Table 6 Model results parallel latent growth model autonomous motivation

Regression path Estimate SE Critical ratio p value (two-tailed)

iaut
Autonomous wave 1 1.00 .00
Autonomous wave 2 1.00 .00
Autonomous wave 3 1.00 .00
Autonomous wave 4 1.00 .00
Autonomous wave 5 1.00 .00
saut
Autonomous wave 1 .00 .00
Autonomous wave 2 .224 .137 1.637 .102
Autonomous wave 3 1.598 .101 15.853 < .001
Autonomous wave 4 1.823 .102 17.786 < .001
Autonomous wave 5 2.080 .00
iSE
Self-efficacy wave 1 1.00 .00
Self-efficacy wave 2 1.00 .00
Self-efficacy wave 3 1.00 .00
Self-efficacy wave 4 1.00 .00
sSE
Self-efficacy wave 1 .00 .00
Self-efficacy wave 2 − .108 .185 − .582 .561
Self-efficacy wave 3 1.252 .193 6.496 < .001
Self-efficacy wave 4 1.50 .00
Covariances
saut WITH iaut − .059 .015 − 3.943 < .001
iSE WITH iaut .152 .029 5.285 < .001
WITH saut − .009 .013 − .695 .467
sSE WITH iaut − .055 .021 − 2.696 .007
WITH saut .043 .009 4.514 < .001
WITH iSE − .037 .023 − 1.624 .104
Means
iaut 3.205 .040 80.459 < .001
saut .226 .018 12.572 < .001
iSE 3.495 .039 89.303 < .001
sSE − .109 .025 − 4.371 < .001
Variances
iaut .381 .032 11.990 < .001
saut .056 .008 7.350 < .001
iSE .407 .030 13.501 < .001
sSE .063 .025 2.530 .011

strata with more than one cluster. Consequently, we decided to remove all the non-significant
control variables from the model. The final model predicting self-efficacy including type of
secondary education and gender as a control variable for the slope of self-efficacy showed a
good fit (χ2 = 123.493, df = 43, CFI = .959, TLI = .949, RMSEA [CI 90%] = .055 [.043; .066],
SRMR = .060, BIC = 7593.592). The results of this final model predicting the development of
self-efficacy are presented in Table 7 and show that the slope of the growth of self-efficacy is
significantly predicted by the slope of the growth in autonomous motivation but not by the
intercept of the growth in autonomous motivation. The development of autonomous motiva-
tion predicts the development in self-efficacy, but the initial differences in autonomous
motivation do not predict the development of self-efficacy. The initial differences in autono-
mous motivation do however predict the initial differences in self-efficacy. However, remark-
ably, the covariance between the intercept and slope of self-efficacy is not significant.
 E. Kyndt et al.

Autonomous Autonomous Autonomous Autonomous Autonomous

Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 3 Wave 4 Wave 5

Self-efficacy Self-efficacy Self-efficacy Self-efficacy

Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 3 Wave 4
Fig. 2 Model parallel growth curve analysis autonomous motivation

Regarding the control variables, the results showed that students from general secondary
education have a stronger growth in self-efficacy in comparison with students from technical
and vocational secondary education. Males also show a larger growth in comparison with
females. The other control variables did not predict growth in self-efficacy significantly. None
of the control variables significantly predicted the initial differences in self-efficacy. Further
examination of the covariances revealed that the intercept and slope of autonomous motivation
are negatively related to each other. Students with higher starting values have a smaller
increase in motivation over time. In total, this model explains 16.5% (SE = .040, p < .001) of
the variance in the intercept and 61.7% (SE = .123, p < .001) of the variance in the slope
capturing the development of self-efficacy.

Discussion

The current longitudinal study examined whether the development in self-efficacy explains the
development in students’ motivation across the transition from secondary to higher education.
Despite theoretical expectations, the results of the current study do not provide support for the
directional relationship between self-efficacy and autonomous motivation, as postulated by the
self-determination theory and social cognitive theory (e.g. Alivernini and Lucidi 2011;
Bouffard et al. 2001; Ryan and Deci 2000; Schüler et al. 2010). Rather, our results favour a
reversed relationship: Autonomous motivation predicts self-efficacy. First, students with
higher autonomous motivation at the start of their final year of secondary education also
Does self-efficacy contribute to the development of students’ motivation...

Table 7 Model results (reversed) parallel latent growth model with predictors

Regression path Estimate SE Critical ratio p value (two-tailed)

iaut
Autonomous wave 1 1.00 .00
Autonomous wave 2 1.00 .00
Autonomous wave 3 1.00 .00
Autonomous wave 4 1.00 .00
Autonomous wave 5 1.00 .00
saut
Autonomous wave 1 .00 .00
Autonomous wave 2 .196 .136 1.444 .149
Autonomous wave 3 1.589 .102 15.533 < .001
Autonomous wave 4 1.812 .102 17.818 < .001
Autonomous wave 5 2.080 .00
iSE
Self-efficacy wave 1 1.00 .00
Self-efficacy wave 2 1.00 .00
Self-efficacy wave 3 1.00 .00
Self-efficacy wave 4 1.00 .00
sSE
Self-efficacy wave 1 .00 .00
Self-efficacy wave 2 − .061 .154 − .396 .692
Self-efficacy wave 3 1.212 .160 7.580 < .001
Self-efficacy wave 4 1.500 .00
Regression paths
sSE ON
sAut .803 .148 5.440 < .001
IAut − .019 .039 − .458 .647
iSE ON
iAut .424 .052 8.189 < .001
Control variables
sSE ON
Sex − .086 .039 − 2.214 .027
General secondary education .143 .045 3.206 .001
Covariances
sAut WITH iAut − .056 .015 − 3.672 < .001
sSE WITH iSE − .021 .017 − 1.250 .211
Means
iAut 3.208 .040 80.747 < .001
sAut .225 .017 12.428 < .001
Variances
iAut .376 .031 11.981 < .001
sAut .054 .007 7.236 < .001

reported higher values for self-efficacy at this time. This result is in line with prior research
(e.g. Alivernini and Lucidi 2011; Deci and Ryan 2000; Schüler et al. 2010; Stajkovic and
Luthans 2003), but in itself cross-sectional in nature so in essence it does not provide
information about the directionality of the relationship. However, our results also showed that
the growth in autonomous motivation positively predicts the growth in self-efficacy and that
this ‘reversed’ model is superior in terms of fit and explained variance to the hypothesised
model. The fact that our findings contradict the theoretical expectations could be explained by
the focus on learning. Schunk (1991) already stated that within educational contexts, the
influence of self-efficacy on motivational outcomes is more complex precisely due to the fact
that learning is involved. He continues by stating that it seems reasonable that students with
 E. Kyndt et al.

higher self-efficacy would invest effort in activities to increase their ability and performance.
‘In turn, these actions should produce better learning and substantiate students’ efficacy’
(Schunk 1991, p. 222).
Despite its contribution, this study faces some limitations that may hinder the impact and
generalisability of the results. Firstly, it focuses on a specific group of students: those
progressing to higher education after graduating from secondary education. Students in higher
education in Belgium are more diverse in comparison with samples from countries with highly
competitive admission systems and high tuition fees; therefore, the results of the current study
cannot necessarily be applied to other countries with different admission policies. A study by
Ratelle et al. (2004), for example, identified a minority group of students who encountered
motivational problems in their first year at college. It would be interesting to see whether future
research could examine whether these less optimal motivational patterns could explain drop-
out rates within higher education.
Finally, besides controlling for students’ socio-economic backgrounds and whether they
came through the general or technical and vocational secondary education systems, no other
personal characteristics of the students were taken into account. A study by Schüler et al. (2010)
in the domain of sports, for example, identified that an individual’s need for achievement
moderates the relationship between self-efficacy and autonomous motivation. The relationship
between self-efficacy and autonomous motivation is stronger for individuals with a high need
for achievement (Schüler et al. 2010). Future research could explore whether this relationship
can be replicated in the context of the transition from secondary to higher education.

Conclusion

The current study is one of the first to attempt to examine the development of academic
motivation and self-efficacy across the transition from secondary to higher education using a
longitudinal design. Moreover, it tries to unravel the complex relationship among these
constructs. Results contradict the theoretically assumed relationship that self-efficacy would
predict autonomous motivation and favours the opposite direction. However, further research
is needed taking relevant personal resources as well as objective performance outcomes into
account. Moreover, it would be interesting to examine the development patterns of students
that do not enter or drop out of higher education. Next to the theoretical contribution, the
current study also demonstrates the application (and opportunities) of advanced latent growth
models taking the nested structure of the data into account.

References

Alivernini, F., & Lucidi, F. (2011). Relationship between social context, self-efficacy, motivation, academic
achievement, and intention to drop out of high school: a longitudinal study. The Journal of Educational
Research, 104(4), 241–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671003728062.
Armor, D. A., & Taylor, S. E. (1998). Situated optimism: specific outcome expectancies and self-regulation. In
M. A. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 309–379). New York: Academic.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: a social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Does self-efficacy contribute to the development of students’ motivation...

Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist,
28(2), 117–148. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2802_3.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2012). On the functional properties of perceived self-efficacy revisited. Journal of Management,
38(1), 9–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311410606.
Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (1996). Multifaceted impact of self-efficacy beliefs
on academic functioning. Child Development, 67(3), 1206–1222. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1996.
tb01791.x.
Bong, M., & Skaalvik, E. M. (2003). Academic self-concept and self-efficacy: how different are they really?
Educational Psychology Review, 15(1), 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021302408382.
Bouffard, T., Boileau, L., & Vezeau, C. (2001). Students’ transition from elementary to high school and changes
of the relationship between motivation and academic performance. European Journal of Psychology of
Education, 16(4), 589–604. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173199.
Briggs, A. R. J., Clark, J., & Hall, I. (2012). Building bridges: understanding student transition to university.
Quality in Higher Education, 18(1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/1343822.2011.614468.
Brooman, S., & Darwent, S. (2014). Measuring the beginning: a quantitative study of the transition to higher
education. Studies in Higher Education, 39(9), 1523–1541. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 03075079.2013.801428.
Christie, H., Tett, L., Cree, V. E., Hounsell, J., & McCune, V. (2008). ‘A real rollercoaster of confidence and
emotions’: learning to be a university student. Studies in Higher Education, 33(5), 567–581. https://doi.
org/10.1080/03075070802373040.
Coertjens, L., Donche, V., De Maeyer, S., Vanthournout, G., & Van Petegem, P. (2013). Modeling change in
learning strategies throughout higher education: a multi-indicator latent growth perspective. PLoS One, 8(7),
e67854. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0067854.
Coertjens, L., Donche, V., De Maeyer, S., Vanthournout, G., & Van Petegem, P. (2012). Longitudinal measure-
ment invariance of Likert-type learning strategy scales: are we using the same ruler at each wave? Journal of
Psychoeducational Assessment, 30(6), 577–587. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282912438844.
Cerasoli, C. P., Nicklin, J. M., & Ford, M. T. (2014). Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic incentives jointly predict
performance: a 40-year meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140(4), 980–1008. https://doi.org/10.1037
/a0035661.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2002). Handbook of self-determination research. Rochester, NY: University of
Rochester Press.
Eccles, J. S., Lord, S., & Buchanan, C. M. (1996). School transitions in early adolescence: what are we doing to
our young people? In J. A. Graber & J. Brooks-Gunn (Eds.), Transitions through adolescence: Interpersonal
domains and context (pp. 221–284). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Enders, C. K., & Bandalos, D. L. (2001). The relative performance of full information maximum likelihood
estimation for missing data in structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary
Journal, 8(3), 430–457. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0803_5.
Epskamp, S., Cramer, A. O. J., Waldorp, L. J., Schmittmann, V. D., & Borsboom, D. (2012). qgraph: network
visualizations of relationships in psychometric data. Journal of Statistical Software, 48, 1–18.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement error (pp. 39–50). XVIII: Journal of Marketing Research.
Harrell, F.E. (2012). Hmisc: Harrell miscellaneous. R package version 3.9-3. Retrieved on July 19th, 2012 from
http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=Hmisc
Iacobucci, D. (2010). Structural equations modelling: fit indices, sample size, and advanced topics. Journal of
Consumer Psychology, 20(1), 90–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeps.2009.09.003.
Ishitani, T. T. (2003). A longitudinal approach to assessing attrition behavior among first-generation students:
time-varying effects of pre-college characteristics. Research in Higher Education, 44(4), 433–449.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024284932709.
Müller, F. H., & Palekčić, M. (2005). Continuity of motivation in higher education: a three-year follow-up study.
Review of Psychology, 12, 31–42.
Muthén, L.K., & Muthén, B.O. (2010). Growth modeling with latent variables using Mplus: advanced growth
models, survival analysis and missing data. Mplus Short Courses.
OECD. (2010). Education at a glance 2010: OECD indicators. Paris: Centre for Educational Research and
innovation.
Otis, N., Grouzet, F. M. E., & Pelletier, L. G. (2005). Latent motivational change in an academic setting: a 3-year
longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(2), 170–183. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
0663.97.2.170.
 E. Kyndt et al.

Pan, Y., & Gauvain, M. (2012). The continuity of college students’ autonomous learning motivation and its
predictors: a three-year longitudinal study. Learning and Individual Differences, 22(1), 92–99. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.lindif.2011.11.010.
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66(4), 543–578.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543066004543.
Pintrich, P., Smith, D., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. (1991). A manual for the use of the Motivated Strategies for
Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Ann Arbor: National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary
Teaching and Learning.
Pintrich, P. E., & Schunk, D. H. (1995). Motivation in education: theory, research, and applications. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
R Development Core Team (2012). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for
Statistical Computing: Vienna. Retrieved on July 19th, 2012, from http://www.R-project.org/.
Ratelle, C. F., Guay, F., Larose, S., & Senécal, C. (2004). Family correlates of trajectories of academic motivation
during a school transition: a semiparametric group-based approach. Journal of Educational Psychology,
96(4), 743–754. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.4.743.
Revelle, W. (2012). psych: procedures for personality and psychological research. Northwestern University,
Evanston. Retrieved on July 19th, 2012 from http://personality-project.org/r/psych.manual.pdf
Richardson, M., Abraham, C., & Bond, R. (2012). Psychological correlates of university students’ academic
performance: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138(2), 353–387. https://doi.
org/10.1037/a0026838.
Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: an R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48, 1–36.
Ryan, R. M., & Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization: examining reasons for
acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(5), 749–761.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social
development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066
X.55.1.68.
Schüler, J., Sheldon, K. M., & Fröhlich, S. M. (2010). Implicit need for achievement moderates the relationship
between competence need satisfaction and subsequent motivation. Journal of Research in Personality, 44(1),
1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2009.09.002.
Sheldon, K. M., Elliot, A. J., Kim, Y., & Kasser, T. (2001). What is satisfying about satisfying events? Testing 10
candidate psychological needs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(2), 325–339. https://doi.
org/10.1037//O022-3514.80.2.325.
Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26, 207-–231.
Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (2003). Social cognitive theory and self-efficacy: implications for motivation
theory and practice. In L. W. Porter, G. A. Bigley, & R. M. Steers (Eds.), Motivation and work behavior (7th
ed., pp. 126–140). Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin/McGraw-Hill.
Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., Blais, M. R., Brière, N. M., Sénécal, C., & Vallière, E. F. (1992). The Academic
Motivation Scale: a measure of intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivation in education. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 52(4), 1003–1017. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164492052004025.
van Daal, T., Coertjens, L., Delvaux, E., Donche, V., & Van Petegem, P. (2013). Klaar voor hoger onderwijs of
arbeidsmarkt? Longitudinaal onderzoek bij laatstejaarsleerlingen secundair onderwijs. [Ready for higher
education or the labour market? A longitudinal study of final year secondary education students].
Antwerpen: Garant.
Van de Schoot, R., Lugtig, P., & Hox, J. (2012). A checklist for testing measurement invariance. European
Journal of Developmental Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 17405629.2012.686740.
Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., & Deci, E. L. (2006). Intrinsic versus extrinsic goal contents in self-determination
theory: another look at the quality of academic motivation. Educational Psychologist, 41(1), 19–31.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4101_4.
Vansteenkiste, M., Sierens, E., Soenens, B., Luyckx, K., & Lens, W. (2009). Motivational profiles from a self-
determination perspective: the quality of motivation matters. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(3),
671–688. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015083.
Vansteenkiste, M., Smeets, S., Soenens, B., Lens, W., Matos, L., & Deci, E. L. (2010). Autonomous
and controlled regulation of performance-approach goals: their relations to perfectionism and
educational outcomes. Motivation and Emotion, 34(4), 333–353. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-
010-9188-3.
Vanthournout, G., Gijbels, D., Coertjens, L., Donche, V., & Van Petegem, P. (2012). Students’ persistence and
academic success in a first year professional bachelor program: the influence of students’ learning strategies and
academic motivation. Education Research International, 2012, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/152747.
Does self-efficacy contribute to the development of students’ motivation...

Winn, S. (2002). Student motivation: a socio-economic perspective. Studies in Higher Education, 27(4), 445–
457. https://doi.org/10.1080/0307507022000011552.

Eva Kyndt. Centre for Research on Professional Learning & Development, and Lifelong Learning, KU Leuven –
University of Leuven, Dekenstraat 2, PB3772, 3000 Leuven, Belgium. E-mail: Eva.Kyndt@kuleuven.be; Web
site: www.kuleuven.be

Current themes of research:

Transition from education to work. Workplace Learning. Transfer or learning. Organisational learning. Vocational
education.

Most relevant publications in the field of Psychology of Education:

Grosemans, I., Coertjens, L., & Kyndt, E. (2017). Exploring learning and fit in the transition from higher
education to the labour market. A systematic review. Educational Research Review, 21, 67–84.
Kyndt, E., Donche, V., Trigwell, K., & Lindblom-Ylänne, S. (Eds.) (2017). Higher education transition: theory
& research. London: Routledge.
Kyndt, E., Gijbels, D., Grosemans, I., & Donche, V. (2016). Teachers’ everyday professional development:
mapping informal learning activities, antecedents, and learning outcomes. Review of Educational Research,
86(4), 1111–1150.
Meredith, C., Van den Noortgate, W., Struyve, C., Gielen, S., & Kyndt, E. Where do information ties in
secondary schools come from? A multilevel network approach. Social Networks: An International Journal
of Structural Analysis, 32, 35–40.
Vangrieken, K., Grosemans, I., Dochy, F., & Kyndt, E. (2017). Teacher autonomy and collaboration: a
paradox? Conceptualising and measuring teachers’ autonomy and attitude. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 67, 302–315.

Vincent Donche. Research Group EduBron, University of Antwerp, Sint-Jacobstraat 2-4, 2000 Antwerp,
Belgium. E-mail: Vincent.Donche@uantwerpen.be; Web site: www.uantwerpen.be

Current themes of research:

Student learning. Student motivation. Teacher learning. Transition from secondary to higher education.

Most relevant publications in the field of Psychology of Education:

Coertjens, L., Donche, V., De Maeyer, S., van Daal, T., & Van Petegem, P. (2017). The growth trend in
learning strategies during the transition from secondary to higher education in Flanders. Higher
Education, 73, 499–518.
Kyndt, E., Donche, V., Trigwell, K., & Lindblom-Ylänne, S. (Eds.) (2017). Higher education transition: theory
& research. London: Routledge.
Noyens, D., Donche, V., Coertjens, L., & Van Petegem, P. (2017). Transitions to higher education: moving
beyond quantity. In E. Kyndt, V. Donch, K. Trigwell, & S. Lindblom-Ylänne (Eds.), Higher education
transitions: theory and research (pp. 3–12). London: Routledge.
Vanthournout, G., Catrysse, L., Coertjens, L., Gijbels, D., & Donche, V. (2017). The development of learning
strategies in higher education: impact of gender and prior education. In E. Kyndt, V. Donch, K. Trigwell, & S.
Lindblom-Ylänne (Eds.), Higher education transitions: theory and research (pp. 135–156). London:
Routledge.
 E. Kyndt et al.

Vermunt, J.D., & Donche, V. (2017). A learning patterns perspective on students learning in higher education:
state of the art and moving forward. Educational Psychology Review, 29, 269–299.

Liesje Coertjens. Psychological Sciences Research Institute, Catholic University of Louvain, Place Cardinal
Mercier 10/L3.05.01, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium. E-mail: liesje.coertjens@uclouvain.be; Web site: www.
uclouvain.be

Current themes of research:

Learning strategies. Longitudinal analyses. Performance assessment. Students’ transitions.

Most relevant publications in the field of Psychology of Education:

Coertjens, L., Donche, V., De Maeyer, S., van Daal, T., & Van Petegem, P. (2017). The growth trend in
learning strategies during the transition from secondary to higher education in Flanders. Higher
Education, 73, 499–518.
Coertjens, L., Donche, V., De Maeyer, S., Vanthournout, G., & Van Petegem, P. (2017). To what degree does the
missing-data technique influence the estimated growth in learning strategies over time? A tutorial example of
sensitivity analysis for longitudinal data. PLoS One, 12(9), e.0182615.
Grosemans, I., Coertjens, L., & Kyndt, E. (2017). Exploring learning and fit in the transition from higher
education to the labour market. A systematic review. Educational Research Review, 21, 67–84.
van Daal, T. Lesterhuis, M., Coertjens, L., Donche, V., & De Maeyer, S. (in press). Validity of comparative
judgement to assess academic writing: examining implications of its holistic character and building on a
shared consensus. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice. https://doi.org/10.1080
/0969594X.2016.1253542.
van Daal, T., Lesterhuis, M., Coertjens, L., van de Kamp, M.T., Donche, V., & De Maeyer, S. (in press). The
complexity of assessing student work using comparative judgment: the moderating role of decision accuracy.
Frontiers in Education. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2017.00044.

Tine van Daal. Research Group EduBron, University of Antwerp, Sint-Jacobstraat 2-4, 2000 Antwerp, Belgium.
E-mail: Tine.vanDaal@uantwerpen.be; Web site: www.uantwerpen.be

Current themes of research:

Performance assessment. Comparative judgement. Student learning.

Most relevant publications in the field of Psychology of Education:

Coertjens, L., Donche, V., De Maeyer, S., van Daal, T., & Van Petegem, P. (2017). The growth trend in
learning strategies during the transition from secondary to higher education in Flanders. Higher
Education, 73, 499–518.
Donche, V., Endedijk, M.D., & van Daal T. (2015). Differential effects of a long teacher training internship on
students’ learning-to-teach patterns. European Journal of Teacher Education, 38, 484–495.
Kyndt, E., Coertjens, V., van Daal, T., Donche, V., Gijbels, D., & Van Petegem, P. (2015). The development of
students’ motivation in the transition from secondary to higher education: a longitudinal study. Learning and
Individual Differences, 39, 114–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.03.001.
Does self-efficacy contribute to the development of students’ motivation...

van Daal, T. Lesterhuis, M., Coertjens, L., Donche, V., & De Maeyer, S. (in press). Validity of comparative
judgement to assess academic writing: Examining implications of its holistic character and building on a
shared consensus. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice. https://doi.org/10.1080
/0969594X.2016.1253542.
van Daal, T., Lesterhuis, M., Coertjens, L., van de Kamp, M.T., Donche, V., & De Maeyer, S. (in press). The
complexity of assessing student work using comparative judgment: the moderating role of decision accuracy.
Frontiers in Education. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2017.00044.

David Gijbels. Research Group EduBron, University of Antwerp, Sint-Jacobstraat 2-4, 2000 Antwerp, Belgium.
E-mail: David.Gijbels@uantwerpen.be; Web site: www.uantwerpen.be

Current themes of research:

Student learning. Higher education. Workplace learning. Vocational education.

Most relevant publications in the field of Psychology of Education:

Catrysse, L., Gijbels, D., Donche, V., De Maeyer, S., Van den Bossche, P., & Gommers, L. (2016). Mapping
processing strategies in learning from expository tekst: an exploratory eye tracking study followed by a cued
recall. Frontline Learning Research, 4, 1–16.
Dolmans, D.H.J.M., Loyens, S.M.M., Marcq, H., & Gijbels, D. (2016). Deep and surface learning in problem-
based learning: a review of the literature. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 21, 1087–1112.
Gijbels, D., Kyndt, E., Peeters, L. & Schelfhout, W. Getting the most out of the combination of working and
learning: the case of teachers-in-training in Flanders. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 32(2),
183–199. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-016-0309-6.
Kyndt, E., Gijbels, D., Grosemans, I. & Donche, V. (2016). Teachers’ everyday professional development:
mapping informal learning activities, antecedents, and learning outcomes. Review of Educational Research,
86(4), 1111–1150. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315627864.
Kyndt, E., Janssens, I., Coertjens, L., Gijbels, D., & Donche, V., & Van Petegem, P. (2014). Vocational education
students’ generic working life competencies: developing a self-assessment instrument. Vocations and Learn-
ing, 7(3), 365–392.

Peter Van Petegem. Research Group EduBron, University of Antwerp, Sint-Jacobstraat 2-4, 2000 Antwerp,
Belgium. E-mail: Peter.VanPetegem@uantwerpen.be; Web site: www.uantwerpen.be

Current themes of research:

School improvement and innovation. Educational policy. Quality evaluation. Learning. Teaching.

Most relevant publications in the field of Psychology of Education:

Coertjens, L., Donche, V., De Maeyer, S., van Daal, T., & Van Petegem, P. (2017). The growth trend in
learning strategies during the transition from secondary to higher education in Flanders. Higher
Education, 73, 499–518.
Coertjens, L., Donche, V., De Maeyer, S., Vanthournout, G., & Van Petegem, P. (2017). To what degree does the
missing-data technique influence the estimated growth in learning strategies over time? A tutorial example of
sensitivity analysis for longitudinal data. PLoS One, 12(9), e.0182615.
 E. Kyndt et al.

De Bondt, N., & Van Petegem, P. (in press). Emphasis on emotions in student learning: analyzing relationships
between overexcitabilities and the learning approach using Bayesian MIMIC modelling. High Ability Studies:
the Journal of the European Council for High Ability. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2017.1292897.
Noyens, D., Donche, V., Coertjens, L., & Van Petegem, P. (2017). Transitions to higher education: moving
beyond quantity. In E. Kyndt, V. Donch, K. Trigwell, & S. Lindblom-Ylänne (Eds.), Higher education
transitions: theory and research (pp. 3–12). London: Routledge.
Robbers, E., Donche, V., De Maeyer, S., & Van Petegem, P. (in press). A longitudinal study of learning
conceptions on the transition between primary and secondary education. Research Papers in Education.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2017.1329337.